Why was the 2nd Admendment Created?
by HMJC
Studmuffin
Last comment by gacpl 1 month, 3 weeks ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.

In light of the discord surrounding the 2nd Amendment I wanted to go back to the “Basics” and dig a little deeper into why it was considered a crucial instrument of the Constitution at that snapshot in time. My “Preamble” to this discussion is the Preamble of our Countries Constitution. This has been the cornerstone of the inalienable rights Americans are guaranteed from its inception. It is important to reflect on the first statement of our Constitution and take pause to reflect on why our Founding Fathers were so adamant about the verbiage and the reasoning’s behind their thought processes when formulating the Amendments to this sacred document.

If you can stand reading through my meanderings; I have chosen some points to discuss and offer my interpretation(s). With that said I have no reasonable expectation that all of us are the same opinion but we are afforded this living in a Free Society; its ok to agree to disagree…

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.- Second Amendment to the US Constitution derived from the Bill of Rights.

So… why was this concise statement so important to our Founding Fathers?
To me first and foremost; it was because of the overt oppression of the English and the Monarchy’s use of a formal Army to crush any deviations from its proclamations. It was a right that was provided to the people to defend themselves against “A Corrupt Government”

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

First Point or Order: “The American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.” This was the thought process 200 years ago!!! I think it is safe to say this same sentiment holds truer today in American Society. The Military is made up of volunteer forces; I have full confidence our Nations Armed Forces would NEVER turn on its own people.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth-century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth-century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

Second Point of Order: “Furthermore, eighteenth-century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses.”

Key Phrase: Modern Soldiers weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses.

Third Point of Order: The only Federal sanctioned “Militia” is the National Guard. If in fact called on to serve in an armed conflict the Soldier is issued, I say again issued an Assault Weapon intended specifically for those purposes. Furthermore, it is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) to carry any personally owned weapons into battle and is punishable by trial by Court Martial in some cases. “As of March 5th of 2013, there are 1,360 known militia's whose average membership is a couple hundred per group so around 270,000 to 680,000 “Citizen Soldiers”. The research I have been doing does allude to some “State Sanctioned” Militias being included as part of Disaster Response Plans but I cannot find anything that refers to a State Sanctioned Militia being an option for armed conflict. Please feel free to correct me on this if I am wrong; not that you need permission…

So my point? The only people subject to “Recall” to serve are for trained Military members after they have exited active duty.
With this said, The Supreme Court has consistently dissented that the right to keep and bear arms is not bound to being in a Militia but the 2nd Amendment is subject to regulation, such as:

concealed weapons prohibitions

limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill

laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations,

laws imposing conditions on commercial sales

prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

In closing, regardless of the rhetoric of “Big Brother is coming for my guns”; this is not a feasible argument. I have a hard time conceding that the Federal Government will eventually be able to disarm the populace. I also cannot place credence that our Nation is going to rise up against the government in armed conflict. Our country has its issues but the alarmist proclamations and the winding of the Doomsday clock still do not compare to the to the Oppression of a governing body that our Forefathers fought so desperately to ensure it would not happen again.

The bottom line… Banning or restricting the ownership of firearms classified as Assault Weapons that were designed specifically for conflict is a no-brainer. The past tragedies have shown us that something needs to change. The problem is trying to get our people to come to a common consensus that restricting Assault Weapon ownership does not mean ALL guns. If ya made it this far… Thanks and please offer your POV


Latest Activity: Oct 11, 2017 at 1:31 PM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by HMJC
Send HMJC a Message
Report Abuse


Blog has been viewed (362) times.

timeontarget commented on Wednesday, Oct 11, 2017 at 14:32 PM

I have heard it said that after Japan successfully attacked and decimated our fleet at Pearl Harbor they refrained from invading our western shores only because they felt that every US household was armed.

We need to keep it that way.

gacpl commented on Thursday, Oct 12, 2017 at 08:49 AM

If you think gun control works. Look at Chicago. They have the strongest gun control laws . Yet 50+ are killed there every week. Throughout history
different country's have thought they were safe and didn't think much of gun restrictions. Eventually they were totally disarmed. It didnt turn out good for most.

wayne44 commented on Monday, Oct 16, 2017 at 05:17 AM

I think this gentelman had the right idea about gun control even back in the 1700's. Ceaare Becerria, Italian Criminologist, Treatise on "Crimes and Punishment." Published in 1764
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifiling inconvience; one that would take fire from men because it burns, or water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evil; except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of guns are of such a nature. Such laws make things worse for the assualted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides; for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarms only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." His argument is just as relevant today as it was in 1764.

HMJC commented on Monday, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:54 AM

I continue to iterate that the American Public will never be disarmed, never.

However; I still am of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment is not a cart blanc for Americans to own any type of firearm they desire.

Our society's culture seems to have a propensity for violence as a quick means to an end. There are plenty of the Law Abiding sort that should be of concern when it comes to owning Assualt Weapons should be questioned.

This is not about "Gun Contol" or alarmist response to firearms ownership. It is a collective discussion that needs to be had between citizens and their appointed officials about a reasonable way ahead and commitment to rational legislation that promotes the safety of all Americans that gets one class of weapons off the market.

gacpl commented on Tuesday, Oct 17, 2017 at 08:58 AM

And once assault riffles are banned then they will move on to the next gun type. It just a stepping stone to total disarmament.

gacpl commented on Tuesday, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:00 AM
HMJC commented on Tuesday, Oct 17, 2017 at 13:31 PM

I'm Sorry Y'all, Some laws may change but once again, the American People will not be disarmed. Until we acknowledge that some weapons are not made for Joe Blow. The alarmist rhetoric is part of the problem; it exacerbates the possibility for a compromise. The only persons that should carry Assualt Weapons in public are the National Gaurd and Swat. Every time I see someone carry an M16 around in public I think of how much harder it makes it come to a common consensus. I don't see it as exercising your 2nd Amendment rights; I see someone bringing attention to themselves and creating a tense atmosphere that is unnecessary and dangerous. Regardless I respect everyone's right to their sentiments; just tired of seeing scores of people killed at one time in the name of nothing. Enough already...

gacpl commented on Tuesday, Oct 17, 2017 at 22:11 PM

We will be disarmed if we allow cuts to our rights. Assault weapons today. Tomorrow another step and so forth. Saying the 2nd amendment doesn't cover armorlite weapons because they did not exist when the bill of rights were wrote is like saying the 1st admentnemt only covers manual printing presses. Furthermore. "Assault" is A action, not a name. The ar15 dost mot mean assault riffle. It means armorlite riffle

gacpl commented on Tuesday, Oct 17, 2017 at 22:13 PM

Also the bump stock was made legal during the obama administration.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by HMJC
 
Gateway Drug(s) or an Excuse?
December 07, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/well/live/a-comeback-for-the-gateway-drug-theory.html This article illustrates the folly of employing “Scare Tactics” and Interdiction as the primary way to fight the War on Drugs. This goes all the way back to Refer Madness; PSA’s of teenagers being “whacked out” and doomed to fail in life if they even think about smoking the ...
Read More »
 
Steve Sikes Editorial
December 06, 2017
http://coastalcourier.com/section/4/article/89818/ When he brings Compensation and High Turnover as a focal point, there are a couple of turds in the punch bowl… Please peruse the article and offer your take; look forward to seeing it. This my response to his Editorial” I applaud your support for your team, however; you ...
Read More »
 
The Rich are Getting Richer; Who Cares!!!
December 04, 2017
The Rich are going to benefit from the Tax cuts; WHO Cares!!! If I was considered “Rich” I sure as hell would not be a fan of up to 35% of the money I earned being given to a government that has zero idea how to budget and spend it ...
Read More »
 
CHIP
December 01, 2017
PN, This the latest feedback from the Averting of a Government discussions. The GOP plan is a stopgap measure that's "clean" of unrelated add-ons — with one exception. That would be a technical tweak to the Children's Health Insurance Program to prevent a handful of states that are about to ...
Read More »
 
Sexual Harassment Apology/Non-Apology Tour
December 01, 2017
Welcome to the “Sexual Harassment Apology/Non-Apology Tour 2017” I have provided some musings below about current requests for a “Formal” Apology from various personalities and prose whether or not an Apology is warranted. Before we begin I digress up front; What is considered a Formal Apology by “reasonable persons(s)” standards? ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology